That's funny. My religion, based on the same book you cherry-picked one verse from, told me to treat others with respect and dignity, for I was also once a minority living among those who denied me my basic farking humanity.

Says it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more times than "don't let men lay with men the way they lie with women" (which could also mean things like "don't let 2 men share a bed", "If two men fark, don't do it doggystyle", or even "you can fark like rabbits, but NO SLEEPING" depending on how pedantic you want to get).

// my book also says that I am to follow the laws of the country I live in// and doesn't your book say something about the division between the secular and religious? Something something "unto Caesar what is his" something something?

urbangirl:Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

No one is trying to force churches to perform same sex marriages, so you can safely forget about that strawman.

Every marriage in the US is a civil contract. Whether a straight person gets married through some sort of secular civil ceremony or through a religious wedding ceremony, they are still signing the same marriage license, which is a completely secular civil contract.

So that straight couple who gets married, they get a bunch of tax breaks from the Feds. The same sex couple who gets married in Washington doesn't get those tax breaks. This is just one of many examples of how civil unions are not the same as being married.

Ed Grubermann:urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.

She's still asking questions and accepting answers with an open mind. Give some credit where credit is due.

urbangirl:I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

urbangirl:Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs.

Honest question - where the did you get the idea anywhere that anything in this would lead us to force churches to do anything?

That thing that goes on in a church is called a wedding. It is fully possible to get married without having a wedding. Further, it is fully possible to be an atheist and get married. Church has nothing to do with marriage. Churches perform... weddings.

PirateKing:Jim_Callahan: If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

Yeah, but that was Paul. Paul is like the Dr. Pulaski of Christianity. Showed up in season 2 with no explanation, and everyone's just supposed to ACCEPT that she's in charge of sickbay now? Who the fark are you?

My experience with Christians is that Paul is the ONLY thing in the entire Bible that thety seem to actually believe. Paul let them have shrimp on their plate, hate in their hearts and a few shekels in their pockets without all of that mushy Jesus stuff getting in the way.

Jim_Callahan:If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

Yeah, but that was Paul. Paul is like the Dr. Pulaski of Christianity. Showed up in season 2 with no explanation, and everyone's just supposed to ACCEPT that she's in charge of sickbay now? Who the fark are you?

urbangirl:This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Becuase seperate but equal is not equal and civil unions don't always carry the same benefits as marriage depending on what state you are in. The federal government also doesn't recognize civil unions.

If we were to make civil unions and marriage the same in every way except the name what is the point, why not just call it marriage and treat all families the same.

urbangirl:This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

No, equal rights is what they are looking for. Having a spouse and being married is a societal construct that people generally understand means something. Civil unions are literally an attempt to say that a same sex relationship is somehow less than a straight one.

Abb3w is correct: it is a semantic distinction, albeit a vitally important one; just as the distinction between ‶Rights" and ‶Powers" in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (especially the Tenth Amendment to the other nine, especially the Ninth) is a semantic distinction, albeit one upon which our entire nation and system of government are supposed to be based.

Just because a distinction is semantic doesn′t diminish its importance in any way. Semantics can be vitally important. Consider how much of modern demagoguery depends on the populace not understanding basic semantics of terms that get thrown around:

• There is not now, never was, and never was intended to be, any such thing as ‶States′ Rights." States don′t have Rights. Any Rights. Neither does the Federal Government. Not the Right to enact legislation, levy taxes, maintain a justice system or (in the case of the Feds) a national defense, etc., nor even the Right to exist! They are grantedPowers to do all of those things, by the consent of the Governed People, who retain the Right to revoke those Powers at any time.

Only (Natural) Persons have, or can have, Rights in the sense described in the Declaration of Independence. Aggregate Persons (corporations, unions, trusts, etc.) can have limited pseudo-Rights for the sole purpose of allowing them to participate as equals with Natural Persons in contract and civil tort law (which is why it′s possible to sue a corporation, or for a corporation to own property). If the Supreme Court had had a proper understanding of this ‶semantic distinction," Citizens United may well have been decided differently.

• Full Single-Payer, let alone the Public Option (the real ‶ObamaCare" which did not pass), let alone what actually got passed and became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, often mis-called ‶ObamaCare") is not ‶socialized medicine." At most, those first two would qualify as mandatory and optional, respectively, ‶socialized medical insurance." True socialized medicine would mean that the Government fully owns and taxpayer-funds everything to do with healthcare, from pharmacies to hospitals, clinics, medical and dental schools, etc., as well as paying the salaries of all doctors, dentists, nurses, orderlies, hospital and clinic administrative and bookkeeping and even janitorial staff, medical school faculties and staff, etc. etc. etc.

These are just a few examples. ‶Marriage" vs. ‶Wedding" is yet another example of this.

Serious Black:abb3w: The number two and three answers look to boil down to "because".

I think every reason except for "civil unions are sufficient" and maybe "undermines traditional family structure" boil down to "because." And the second one is only if you really think that kids raised by any set of guardians other than a mother and a father will inevitably end up worse than kids raised by a mother and a father.

Koalaesq:Diogenes: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't legal recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Marriage carries legal rights and obligations that civil unions don't. It's more than just semantics.

To be fair, we COULD modify all the laws about civil unions to mirror the rights granted in marriage, but I doubt that would ever happen. Then it would just be about the religious aspect of the union, which frankly I don't care about and belongs to each person privately. That's one of my big issues, that gay people in civil unions are cut off from lots of legal redress rights just because of who they marry. It's infuriating and unjust.

codergirl42:Because separate but equal is not equal and civil unions don't always carry the same benefits as marriage depending on what state you are in. The federal government also doesn't recognize civil unions.

If we were to make civil unions and marriage the same in every way except the name what is the point, why not just call it marriage and treat all families the same.

Antimatter:Separate but equal is inherently unequal. If civil unions contained all the rights and privileges of marriage, then they would be redundant, as marriage already covers those things. Often, they are a much reduced set of rights, for no real reason.

Pincy:urbangirl: Neeek: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't legal recognition what you/they are really looking for?

No, equal rights is what they are looking for. Having a spouse and being married is a societal construct that people generally understand means something. Civil unions are literally an attempt to say that a same sex relationship is somehow less than a straight one.

OK i get that. so from what everyone's saying it's both a matter of legalities and social legitimacy.

It's a matter of two consenting adults of the same sex being able to have the same options available to them as two consenting adults of the opposite sex.

Carth:urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Here is a page talking about the differences between civil unions and marriages.

Pincy:No one is trying to force churches to perform same sex marriages, so you can safely forget about that strawman.

Every marriage in the US is a civil contract. Whether a straight person gets married through some sort of secular civil ceremony or through a religious wedding ceremony, they are still signing the same marriage license, which is a completely secular civil contract.

So that straight couple who gets married, they get a bunch of tax breaks from the Feds. The same sex couple who gets married in Washington doesn't get those tax breaks. This is just one of many examples of how civil unions are not the same as being married.

buck1138:Good luck getting any red state you might be traveling through to give your civil union (or gay marriage for that matter) the full faith and credit it deserves. So don't ever have to go to the hospital or expect any of the other hundred rights and privileges that are automatically granted to an opposite sex spouse.

codergirl42:It has nothing to do with forcing churches to do anything. Having a secular ceremony isn't any less important than a religious one. It's the legal framework that differs. Each state has different laws and benefits when it comes to civil unions. In washington state we had everything but marriage civil unions. So gay couples got the same benefits as straight couples but we werent allow to call it marriage. Other states may have less rights associated with civil unions than marriage. I think you are confusing secular and religious marriage which are just different types of ceremonies with civil unions and marriage which are different legal entities.

Link

Actually, several of you are confusing ‶marriage" with ‶wedding". ‶Marriage" ≠ ‶Wedding." The two terms are not synonyms. You don′t hear someone say, ‶I′m going to be the Best Man / Maid of Honor at my best friend′s marriage.", nor do you hear a betrayed spouse say to his/her partner while demanding a divorce, ‶Our wedding is over!" Those make no sense. It′s always the other way around.

A marriage is a legal partnership between two (or perhaps more) consenting adults, originally intended to legitimize heirs and forge alliances between families, clans, guilds, tribes, nations, etc. A wedding is an optional ceremony of some sort that participants in a marriage can, if they so choose, participate in to formally initiate the marriage partnership in the eyes of their religion and/or society, but not in the eyes of the law (signing the marriage license does that).

(The legitimizing heirs thing was vital, because they didn′t have Maury Povich and his DNA paternity tests in ancient times, so they needed some way for a man to be able to confidently point to a boy or young man and say, ‶That boy right there is my son and heir, and that other boy over there isn′t." Mothers didn′t have that problem, as they always knew who their children were, for obvious reasons. This is why adultery was considered such a very serious sin, since it yanked the foundation out from under the confidence that this provided to men.)

Anyway, churches do not perform marriages. They perform weddings. So do Justices of the Peace, captains of ships, etc. No one seriously intends to force churches to perform weddings that they feel would be against their doctrines, including same-sex, polygamous, etc.

The problem here is that certain forms of Christianity seek to impose their doctrines on others by force of law, not merely through preaching, proselytizing, persuasion, etc. This is part and parcel of that. They seek to own the very concept of marriage itself. Not just their weddings. Marriage itself!

Sorry, but marriage is a concept that long predates not only Christianity, but Judaism. Cultures far older than Abraham are known to have had partnerships similar or identical to what we call marriage. Christianity (and Judaism for that matter) did not invent marriage, and they do not own it, and thus they have no right to define it. Not. Theirs.

This is why civil unions do not suffice. Even if they were made somehow 100% equal to marriage, allowing this would be tacitly allowing Christianity to claim ownership of the concept of marriage, or at least of the word, and it′s Not. Theirs. At all. Period. This is non-negotiable.

Saruman_W:The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

It may be "obvious" but it's no less stupid than the rest of them.

Unless you've got a citation of a marriage law applying to heterosexual couples that requires reproduction it is just as irrelevant as the religious positions.

Saruman_W:The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

Over population controls while still fulfilling the social phsycological requirements for a healthy individual that can contribute to society w/o risking additional burden on the shaky bridge that spans the problems inherit in an over populated biome?

urbangirl:Just to be clear, I don't now and never have had a problem with gay marriage. This is a question I've asked gay friends from time to time and never gotten the answers I was looking for. When the topic came up here I thought I'd ask again.

Thx 4 the backup.

I'm guessing the reason you "never got the answers you were looking for" is because no one understood your premises. Speaking as a bisexual man and a political activist, I find it sad and somewhat appalling that the right wing has been so successful at controlling the terms of debate of this particular issue.

I'm glad that people ITT were able to draw out your fundamental misunderstanding so that it could be corrected and you could get the information you wanted, but I hope that in turn you remember that those of us who have been and are fighting for equal rights have been answering these same questions over and over for years and decades. Please understand that it is frustrating and painful to have this discussion sometimes, because for many of us it feels like what you're saying is, "Convince me that you deserve equal rights. I don't care enough to find any information myself," even if that's not what you intended.

The My Little Pony Killer:Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.

She's still asking questions and accepting answers with an open mind. Give some credit where credit is due.

urbangirl:I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Is this a serious question?

Just as a test: do you believe that a nonreligious couple who should be relegated to civil unions? That is, do you think marriage should be reserved only for those willing to join under the auspices of a church, synagogue, mosque, etc.?

Pincy:urbangirl: Neeek: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

No, equal rights is what they are looking for. Having a spouse and being married is a societal construct that people generally understand means something. Civil unions are literally an attempt to say that a same sex relationship is somehow less than a straight one.

OK i get that. so from what everyone's saying it's both a matter of legalities and social legitimacy.

It's a matter of two consenting adults of the same sex being able to have the same options available to them as two consenting adults of the opposite sex.

I would have been fine with the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and granting civil unions to any consenting adult couple (I believe some European countries do it that way).

However, you know the Fundies would scream bloody murder that they were being persecuted because the government was taking away their marriage rights.

urbangirl:Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.

urbangirl:rufus-t-firefly: urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

A church isn't ever forced to marry anyone. A church can refuse to perform a marriage between two people for any reason as it is - you can't walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married if you haven't gone through whatever procedures are there. Two Christians don't automatically get a wedding at a synagogue either just because they want one.

Marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay/lesbian couples isn't adequate. Just like "separate but equal" was not equal at all.

I agree. Call me stupid but I didn't know they weren't two terms for the same thing.

I can't blame you, as that's the argument anti-gay marriage people push. they say marriage means one thing, and civil unions are the same union named differently, but that's really not the case.

It's just liek the 'force us to marry them' argument, it really doesn't happen in reality.

What most religious folks hate about the government recognizing same sex marriage is this: It means the government is saying, to them, their religion is wrong. They absolutely, positively, hate when the government doesn't legislate according tot heir faith, or allow things their faith says is bad.

urbangirl:Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs.

Where do people get this idea. You couldn't force a church to perform a wedding before marriage equality, why would you be able to now? As a lapsed Protestant, now atheist, I can't demand a wedding from a synagogue or a Catholic church. Churches are free to stay as narrow-minded as they like. Meanwhile progressive religious institutions can marry same-sex couples.

urbangirl:Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

First off, no one is "forcing" churches to do anything; that line of reasoning has no virtue as an argument. No church is forced to do anything, nor will they be in the future. You have to draw the distinction between the legal definition and benefits of marriage and the optional religious ceremony that carries no legal weight or responsibility. Choosing to skip the religious ceremony changes absolutely nothing about the legal definition.

They are not equivalent because they are distinct legal definitions. If you're just going to make them exactly equivalent, there's no need to have two separate categories. The only reason to have two distinct categories is so that the government can ensure the two are not legally equivalent.

urbangirl:Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

It has nothing to do with forcing churches to do anything. Having a secular ceremony isn't any less important than a religious one. It's the legal framework that differs. Each state has different laws and benefits when it comes to civil unions. In washington state we had everything but marriage civil unions. So gay couples got the same benefits as straight couples but we werent allow to call it marriage. Other states may have less rights associated with civil unions than marriage. I think you are confusing secular and religious marriage which are just different types of ceremonies with civil unions and marriage which are different legal entities.

urbangirl:Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

My answer is that mainly it's a legal thing. Right now, only some states have civil unions, though I think the majority of states don't, and of course the Federal Government doesn't recognize civil unions. There's a whole host of laws that are available to married couples that aren't available to those in civil unions (rights of inheritance, tax breaks, health benefits, etc). So call it whatever you want, but until civil unions are 100% the same as marriages, and carry the same LEGAL weight, there'll be injustice.

urbangirl:Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Here is a page talking about the differences between civil unions and marriages.

Pincy:urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Jim_Callahan:mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

Romans 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another

Dr Dreidel:Koalaesq: My favorite thing about Judaism (except for the Latkes) is that it makes it quite clear that there is a law of man and a law of g-d.

There is a famous Talmudic story on this point (CTB):Two rabbis were arguing over whether a type of oven could be made kosher under specific circumstances (the specifics aren't important to the story). Finally, exasperated, one said, "If I am right, may that river begin flowing backwards." And sure enough, it did.

The other responded: "Not good enough. The rivers don't use ovens, nor do they keep kosher."

So the first one points to a nearby wall and says: "If I am right, may that wall crumble!" And verily, it came to pass.

The other responded: "Wall, cease your falling (ya rly - I think there were people nearby or something, but the wall leaned so as not to "offend" the one who commanded it to fall. This is from the story). Oh, and that's also not good enough. Walls don't keep kosher."

So the first one says: "If I am right, let a heavenly voice ring out to say so!" And a voice rang out: "Rabbi So-and-so is correct!"

The second rabbi, after hearing a heavenly voice give assent to the first rabbi's opinion, responds: "It is not for the heavens to decide."

404 page not found:Mass has been very entertaining the last few months. The priest has been undergoing a very public and very hilarious breakdown.

Before the elections, he told the congregation, "I urge everyone here to cast your vote in favor of traditional marriage." [Denial]

After the elections, he lamented, "My only consolation is that I can now legally smoke pot to ease my pain :(" [Depression]

Most recently, he begged, "Heavenly Father, we pray that our elected leaders understand that their power to rule is derived through you!" [Bargaining]

Only out of respect for Mrs. 404 do I not blurt out, "But child rape and the cover-up and protection of child-rapists is still ok, right Father!?"

/married into it

Just out of curiosity, does your priest think other religions should not get married? Does he think other religions or people with no religion don't exist? I'm completely baffled by people using their own religion as a reason when someone else, who may not practice that religion should somehow have to adhere to their rules.

Dr Dreidel:That's funny. My religion, based on the same book you cherry-picked one verse from, told me to treat others with respect and dignity, for I was also once a minority living among those who denied me my basic farking humanity.

Says it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more times than "don't let men lay with men the way they lie with women" (which could also mean things like "don't let 2 men share a bed", "If two men fark, don't do it doggystyle", or even "you can fark like rabbits, but NO SLEEPING" depending on how pedantic you want to get).

// my book also says that I am to follow the laws of the country I live in// and doesn't your book say something about the division between the secular and religious? Something something "unto Caesar what is his" something something?

My favorite thing about Judaism (except for the Latkes) is that it makes it quite clear that there is a law of man and a law of g-d. The second one is between you and your creator and involves no one else, whereas the first defines how you treat other people and their rights. It makes it rather clear you have no right to abridge the laws of man just because of your private belief in the law of g-d.

I think a smaller proportion of people actually believe that gay marriage is wrong because the bible says it's wrong. There are a lot of people who think they can immunize themselves from criticism if they just hide behind the bible. When your friend asks you why you oppose his marriage, it's so much easier to say "it's not me, blame god" than it is to come right out and say "I think you're gross."

jake_lex:St_Francis_P: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

So, the compromise is don't recognize their marriage? Why not life imprisonment or castration if it so wrong?

Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject. Perhaps Government should not issue restaurant licenses to a place that sellslobsters. Or maybe cut off the hands off fish mongers who sell lobster? Unclear. Very complicated matter. We need to study it out and pray.

It is confusing, but I think we can all agree on the subject of gay lobsters.

I would certainly agree that eating at Red Lobster is an abomination unto The Lord.

St_Francis_P:mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

So, the compromise is don't recognize their marriage? Why not life imprisonment or castration if it so wrong?

Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject. Perhaps Government should not issue restaurant licenses to a place that sellslobsters. Or maybe cut off the hands off fish mongers who sell lobster? Unclear. Very complicated matter. We need to study it out and pray.

It is confusing, but I think we can all agree on the subject of gay lobsters.

I would certainly agree that eating at Red Lobster is an abomination unto The Lord.

New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

So, the compromise is don't recognize their marriage? Why not life imprisonment or castration if it so wrong?

Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject. Perhaps Government should not issue restaurant licenses to a place that sellslobsters. Or maybe cut off the hands off fish mongers who sell lobster? Unclear. Very complicated matter. We need to study it out and pray.